Friday, January 29, 2010
Pakistan: A secular Muslim state
While the refusal of the provinces of the Indus Valley region to stay as a union with the rest of the subcontinent to ensure protection of the Muslims and their religious rights, nothing more was required to ensure this.
This means that mixing religion with state affairs is not what Jinnah and the constitution of Pakistan stood for.
Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Pakistani constitution clearly state:
-every citizen has the right to believe, practice and propagate their religion
-every religious denomination/sect has the right to establish, maintain and manage its religious institutions
-no person can be compelled to pay any special tax to be spent on the propagation or maintenance of a particular religion or religious institution other than his/her own
-no person attending any educational institution can be required to attend religious ceremonies, worship or receive education of a religion other than his/her own.
-no discrimination against any community in grant of tax exemption or concessions for religious institutions
-no discrimination in admission to educational institutions receiving public funds on grounds of race, religion, caste or place of birth
(Exceptions: quota system is permissible for advancement of any socially or educationally backward class of citizens).
So clearly this original constitution is proof of Pakistan's secularism. The later Sharia laws imposed by Zia Ul-Haq were irrelevant as he was not a founding member of the Pakistani constitution.
A famous quote by the founder of modern Pakistan Muhammad Ali Jinnah:
"You are free; you are free to go to your temples. You are free to go to your mosques or to any other places of worship in this State of Pakistan. You may belong to any religion, caste or creed --that has nothing to do with the business of the State."
It is clear from the quotes of the founding father and the constitution that Pakistan owes it's loyalty to anyone other than it's citizens and does not belong to any Pan-Islamist ideologies.
There are Pan-Islamists out there who try to propagate Islam over national identity.
Another quote of his comes as a challenge to these Islamists who have tried to break Pakistan's secularism and impose Pan-Islamism (A 'religious duty' from how they see):
"We are now all Pakistanis--not Balochis, Pathans, Sindhis, Bengalis, Punjabis and so on--and as Pakistanis we must feet behave and act, and we should be proud to be known as Pakistanis and nothing else."
Pakistanis misunderstand the meaning of secularism
When many people in the Muslim world hear the word "secular" they imagine their society totally Westernized and corrupted by the ultra-consumerist culture that's typical to North America. They imagine their people dressed up like punks or imitating Westerners, forgetting their heritage, their history and their culture.
This is a very wrong interpretation of secularism. The actual meaning of secularism is is simple and that is that the state shall not mix itself with any religion or impose any religion on the population.
Religion is everybody's personal issue under secular laws.
No religion should not determine the laws of a multi-religious society where each religious group has it's own distinct set of laws.
The original constitution of Pakistan as laid out by the founding father Muhammad Ali Jinnah is still seen in articles 20, 21 and 22 in the constitution of Pakistan.
But still, this is not how many have understood secularism and many in the Muslim world, especially conservatives, have mixed it with Westernization. These are two very distinct and different things.
Indeed, many do turn to Westernization to counter Islamist fundamentalism, but this is not the solution. The only reason why Westernization is used to oppose is Islamitization is because the West has been traditionally non-Muslim.
While it's true that most Western countries are secular while being Christian, the reason for their success is they do not allow religion to interfere in their politics.
Many Pakistanis, including conservatives live up to their own interpretation of Islam. Only under secular laws can they learn to co-exist peacefully and live by their own personal standards.
Let's also not forget that religious parties have never won in elections in Pakistan. This shows that Pakistanis are more secular than they know themselves to be.
Some people have set Turkey as a role model for Pakistan, while others reject it because it's too Westernized. The truth is Turkey is more of a Westernized country than a secular one. Though it's true that Turkey has been successful in pushing out religious extremists and managed to be a successful Muslim country in many areas (ie. population growth control, basic education, women's rights, decent living standards etc.), the country still has many discriminatory laws (like Pakistan) towards minorities. It being a Westernized country and does not serve as a good model for Pakistan.
A country can always be secular without trading off it's cultural identity for a Western-style identity.
When most Muslim countries adopt secular laws, their populations will be able to co-exist peacefully and work to move ahead. Westernization will be kept out and no religious ideology will interfere with state affairs or impose itself on anybody's personal life.
This is the true meaning of secularism. The founding fathers of modern Pakistan intended for it to be this way.
This is a very wrong interpretation of secularism. The actual meaning of secularism is is simple and that is that the state shall not mix itself with any religion or impose any religion on the population.
Religion is everybody's personal issue under secular laws.
No religion should not determine the laws of a multi-religious society where each religious group has it's own distinct set of laws.
The original constitution of Pakistan as laid out by the founding father Muhammad Ali Jinnah is still seen in articles 20, 21 and 22 in the constitution of Pakistan.
But still, this is not how many have understood secularism and many in the Muslim world, especially conservatives, have mixed it with Westernization. These are two very distinct and different things.
Indeed, many do turn to Westernization to counter Islamist fundamentalism, but this is not the solution. The only reason why Westernization is used to oppose is Islamitization is because the West has been traditionally non-Muslim.
While it's true that most Western countries are secular while being Christian, the reason for their success is they do not allow religion to interfere in their politics.
Many Pakistanis, including conservatives live up to their own interpretation of Islam. Only under secular laws can they learn to co-exist peacefully and live by their own personal standards.
Let's also not forget that religious parties have never won in elections in Pakistan. This shows that Pakistanis are more secular than they know themselves to be.
Some people have set Turkey as a role model for Pakistan, while others reject it because it's too Westernized. The truth is Turkey is more of a Westernized country than a secular one. Though it's true that Turkey has been successful in pushing out religious extremists and managed to be a successful Muslim country in many areas (ie. population growth control, basic education, women's rights, decent living standards etc.), the country still has many discriminatory laws (like Pakistan) towards minorities. It being a Westernized country and does not serve as a good model for Pakistan.
A country can always be secular without trading off it's cultural identity for a Western-style identity.
When most Muslim countries adopt secular laws, their populations will be able to co-exist peacefully and work to move ahead. Westernization will be kept out and no religious ideology will interfere with state affairs or impose itself on anybody's personal life.
This is the true meaning of secularism. The founding fathers of modern Pakistan intended for it to be this way.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Why Pakistan supported the Taliban
The question of Pakistani support for the Taliban is an important one few have asked and many government-bashing, self-hating Pakistanis and the enemies of Pakistan have bothered to look into.
Firstly, the government of Pakistan has never been an Islamist one except for under Zia Ul-Haq, so Islam can be ruled out as the reason.
The usage of religious extremists or any other kind extremists by governments has been for political benefits. Even Zia Ul-Haq himself was said to have slept with whores and indeed most leaders who preach an ultra-orthodox version of Islam are too lazy to follow it's tight restrictions.
So coming back to the question of why Pakistan supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, the history and geography of Afghanistan needs to be understood.
Afghanistan lies in an extremely precious region rich in resources especially in the fields of energy. Though Afghanistan itself might not have many natural resources, it is a path to the Caspian Sea basin which has amongst the highest reserves of oil in the world.
To access this oil for a highly demanding western market (and other non-western markets) via the nearest open-sea port, one must pass through either Iran or through Pakistan to the Turkmenbashy port in Turkmenistan via Afghanistan as the map below shows:
But with Iran having bad relations with Western Europe and America, Pakistan remains the only source of shipping Caspian oil from it's ports through Afghanistan.
The point is that Afghanistan is the only gateway between Pakistan and Central Asia. Ever since the post World War Two era, Pakistan's traditional arch-rivals India, the former Soviet Union and now Shia Iran have kept their influence in the country, backing warlords who would serve their interests.
This gives them control over the trade routes between the oil rich Caspian and also perhaps giving them control of Afghan airspace, thus adding difficulty in air links between Pakistan and the West which passes through Afghanistan.
Right up till the end of the Cold War, the Afghan regimes had pro-Indian, pro-Soviet policies, putting Pakistan in a difficult geo-political situation.
After the pullout of Soviet forces from Afghanistan after a ten year failed invasion, the post revolutionary Shia Iranian government sought to empower the Tajiks to gain control between Pakistan and Central Asia.
The Tajiks aligned themselves with the Uzbeks and Turkmens (backed by Turkey) into the Northern Alliance , which was also pro-Indian and enjoyed Indian support.
It should be noted that the Shia Iranian regime is to a degree very anti-Pakistan and has maintained good relations with India, despite Pakistan and North Korea being Iran's only two supporters during the Iran-Iraq war. Even within Pakistan, the Iranian regime is an important contributor to Shia-Sunni violence.
Within Iran anti-Pakistani propaganda is continuously fed by the regime to the religious masses.
Coming back to Afghanistan, with the Northern Alliance in power, Iran, India and the Russian Federation would control Pakistan's gateway to Central Asia and onwards into Europe.
Seeing it had no other option to counter Afghanistan from falling into the control of it's arch-rivals, Pakistan's government then turned to the Taliban who were mainly consisted of ethnic Pashtuns/Pakhtuns, the traditional arch-rivals of the pro-Iranian Tajiks.
The civil war in Afghanistan was not a religious war, but a war of traditional arch-rival ethnic groups. The various Pakistani governments who came into power have never shared the Taliban's brand of Islam, as most Pakistani politicians don't follow strict forms of Islam, let alone the interpretation of the Taliban.
However, their silence to the brutal practices of the Taliban was so because they shared a common interest with them. Those who see Pakistan as a source of extremism in Afghanistan are ignorant and looking at a narrow perspective of Afghanistan and the region it lies within.
After the 911 attacks the Northern Alliance became champions in the eyes of many in the West who didn't look at their strongest supporters, the Islamic Republic of Iran which till today practices harsh laws on it's population very similar to the Taliban's.
Had Iran, India and the Russian Federation sought some sort of compromise with Pakistan and worked to build a multi-ethnic unifying Afghan government, there would have been no need to support various arch-rivals.
Starting at the end of World War Two right up until the end of the Cold War, the ruling regimes in Afghanistan have been determined to take control of Pakistani provinces as theirs because they saw the Durand line treaty as invalid and openly pledged support for India's claim over Kashmir.
Additionally, Afghanistan's various governments had tried to promote anti-state elements in Pakistan's Balochistan and North Western Frontier Province. It was only then Pakistan got involved in Afghan politics to counter Afghan interference.
As long as Pakistan's arch-rivals continue to use Afghanistan weather to encircle it or to cut off Pakistan from Central Asia, Pakistan, like any other country will do what is in it's best interests to fend off unwanted interference.
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan saw it's sovereignty being threatened fearing it could be next.
The Americans feared the Soviets taking control over Pakistan would eventually give them control of the Arabian sea region.
This is why both countries pledged support for anti-Soviet Mujaheddins. It was a mutual interest rather than a proxy war as many like to propagate.
The Soviet Union also had a history of contributing to Pakistan's problems by pledging support for India in Kashmir as well as helping anti-Pakistan terrorist groups originating in Afghanistan with the intentions of violating the Durand Line.
It is also believed that the USSR played a vital role that led to the devastating and costly events of 1971.
Both America and Pakistan had achieved vengeance for a country that had caused them many troubles in the past by arming and training the Afghan mujaheddin. America for Vietnam and Pakistan for an irritant India and Afghanistan, both backed by the evil Soviet empire.
The critical geopolitical position of Pakistan and Afghanistan recalls the views of Sir Halford J. Mackinder, Professor Karl Hausholer and Admiral Alfred Thomas Mahan. It was Mackinder writing in 1904 who first used the expression "geographical pivots of history." He advanced the idea of the "heartland" i.e. that whoever controls a central strategic or pivotal area, controls the surrounding, area, the range of control expanding in concentric circles. These ideas profoundly influenced Karl Haushofer, an army major general then professor of geography at Munich University. Haushofer was introduced to Adolf Hitler by Rudolf Hess.
Hypocrites who point fingers at Pakistan for being the source of Afghanistan's problems should read history and ask themselves why the Afghan governments created the worst political situations within the country only to call upon the intervention of the USSR, an intervention that would only result in a deadly political climax.
Or why Afghan regimes long before the outbreak of civil war had been trying to create ethnic strife (and still are) within Pakistan and aligning themselves with the Indian government on the Kashmir issue.
Firstly, the government of Pakistan has never been an Islamist one except for under Zia Ul-Haq, so Islam can be ruled out as the reason.
The usage of religious extremists or any other kind extremists by governments has been for political benefits. Even Zia Ul-Haq himself was said to have slept with whores and indeed most leaders who preach an ultra-orthodox version of Islam are too lazy to follow it's tight restrictions.
So coming back to the question of why Pakistan supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, the history and geography of Afghanistan needs to be understood.
Afghanistan lies in an extremely precious region rich in resources especially in the fields of energy. Though Afghanistan itself might not have many natural resources, it is a path to the Caspian Sea basin which has amongst the highest reserves of oil in the world.
To access this oil for a highly demanding western market (and other non-western markets) via the nearest open-sea port, one must pass through either Iran or through Pakistan to the Turkmenbashy port in Turkmenistan via Afghanistan as the map below shows:
But with Iran having bad relations with Western Europe and America, Pakistan remains the only source of shipping Caspian oil from it's ports through Afghanistan.
The point is that Afghanistan is the only gateway between Pakistan and Central Asia. Ever since the post World War Two era, Pakistan's traditional arch-rivals India, the former Soviet Union and now Shia Iran have kept their influence in the country, backing warlords who would serve their interests.
This gives them control over the trade routes between the oil rich Caspian and also perhaps giving them control of Afghan airspace, thus adding difficulty in air links between Pakistan and the West which passes through Afghanistan.
Right up till the end of the Cold War, the Afghan regimes had pro-Indian, pro-Soviet policies, putting Pakistan in a difficult geo-political situation.
After the pullout of Soviet forces from Afghanistan after a ten year failed invasion, the post revolutionary Shia Iranian government sought to empower the Tajiks to gain control between Pakistan and Central Asia.
The Tajiks aligned themselves with the Uzbeks and Turkmens (backed by Turkey) into the Northern Alliance , which was also pro-Indian and enjoyed Indian support.
It should be noted that the Shia Iranian regime is to a degree very anti-Pakistan and has maintained good relations with India, despite Pakistan and North Korea being Iran's only two supporters during the Iran-Iraq war. Even within Pakistan, the Iranian regime is an important contributor to Shia-Sunni violence.
Within Iran anti-Pakistani propaganda is continuously fed by the regime to the religious masses.
Coming back to Afghanistan, with the Northern Alliance in power, Iran, India and the Russian Federation would control Pakistan's gateway to Central Asia and onwards into Europe.
Seeing it had no other option to counter Afghanistan from falling into the control of it's arch-rivals, Pakistan's government then turned to the Taliban who were mainly consisted of ethnic Pashtuns/Pakhtuns, the traditional arch-rivals of the pro-Iranian Tajiks.
The civil war in Afghanistan was not a religious war, but a war of traditional arch-rival ethnic groups. The various Pakistani governments who came into power have never shared the Taliban's brand of Islam, as most Pakistani politicians don't follow strict forms of Islam, let alone the interpretation of the Taliban.
However, their silence to the brutal practices of the Taliban was so because they shared a common interest with them. Those who see Pakistan as a source of extremism in Afghanistan are ignorant and looking at a narrow perspective of Afghanistan and the region it lies within.
After the 911 attacks the Northern Alliance became champions in the eyes of many in the West who didn't look at their strongest supporters, the Islamic Republic of Iran which till today practices harsh laws on it's population very similar to the Taliban's.
Had Iran, India and the Russian Federation sought some sort of compromise with Pakistan and worked to build a multi-ethnic unifying Afghan government, there would have been no need to support various arch-rivals.
Starting at the end of World War Two right up until the end of the Cold War, the ruling regimes in Afghanistan have been determined to take control of Pakistani provinces as theirs because they saw the Durand line treaty as invalid and openly pledged support for India's claim over Kashmir.
Additionally, Afghanistan's various governments had tried to promote anti-state elements in Pakistan's Balochistan and North Western Frontier Province. It was only then Pakistan got involved in Afghan politics to counter Afghan interference.
As long as Pakistan's arch-rivals continue to use Afghanistan weather to encircle it or to cut off Pakistan from Central Asia, Pakistan, like any other country will do what is in it's best interests to fend off unwanted interference.
When the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Pakistan saw it's sovereignty being threatened fearing it could be next.
The Americans feared the Soviets taking control over Pakistan would eventually give them control of the Arabian sea region.
This is why both countries pledged support for anti-Soviet Mujaheddins. It was a mutual interest rather than a proxy war as many like to propagate.
The Soviet Union also had a history of contributing to Pakistan's problems by pledging support for India in Kashmir as well as helping anti-Pakistan terrorist groups originating in Afghanistan with the intentions of violating the Durand Line.
It is also believed that the USSR played a vital role that led to the devastating and costly events of 1971.
Both America and Pakistan had achieved vengeance for a country that had caused them many troubles in the past by arming and training the Afghan mujaheddin. America for Vietnam and Pakistan for an irritant India and Afghanistan, both backed by the evil Soviet empire.
The critical geopolitical position of Pakistan and Afghanistan recalls the views of Sir Halford J. Mackinder, Professor Karl Hausholer and Admiral Alfred Thomas Mahan. It was Mackinder writing in 1904 who first used the expression "geographical pivots of history." He advanced the idea of the "heartland" i.e. that whoever controls a central strategic or pivotal area, controls the surrounding, area, the range of control expanding in concentric circles. These ideas profoundly influenced Karl Haushofer, an army major general then professor of geography at Munich University. Haushofer was introduced to Adolf Hitler by Rudolf Hess.
Hypocrites who point fingers at Pakistan for being the source of Afghanistan's problems should read history and ask themselves why the Afghan governments created the worst political situations within the country only to call upon the intervention of the USSR, an intervention that would only result in a deadly political climax.
Or why Afghan regimes long before the outbreak of civil war had been trying to create ethnic strife (and still are) within Pakistan and aligning themselves with the Indian government on the Kashmir issue.
The danger faced by Pakistan's languages and culture(s).
The obsession of learning English in Pakistan has become quite noticeable. It stems from the mentality "the West is best."
People who have not learned English feel they have no economic future and the rich English-speaking, westernized elites of Pakistan who are the most educated only promote the use of English.
While it's true English is important when you're traveling abroad, it hardly fits any purpose at home in Pakistan domestically speaking.
It only endangers the identity(s) of the country.
If westernized Pakistanis travel to other poorer countries, they'll be surprised to see how little significance English has in over there.
Their citizens only learn foreign languages when they travel/live abroad.
A good example is in Arab countries where Arabic is protected by the law. In some Arab states all public signs must include an Arabic translation.
Some Arabic schools simply re-publish western textbooks, weather science or mathematics into Arabic.
When I lived in UAE, English was hardly treated with any seriousness by local Emiraties. Even Arab expatriates from other countries paid little seriousness to it beyond basic conversational English.
The video below covers the danger faced by Urdu due to English domination:
The reckless policies of private schools has only isolated the 'educated' youth from their societies. When they attend private western schools like the grammar school, they are taught history of western civilizations, to sing in the English language (many westerners will laugh at the sight of this), to speak English daily as possible to the point their native languages are difficult to learn.
They have little knowledge of the lifestyle or the conditions of their people. They are totally unfamiliar with their culture.
They (children of the rich ruling elites) know so much of western history, but hardly that of their own country or people. They hardly know what currently happens in their country, or where their people came from. The Indianized, pro-Indian, Bollywood brainwashed ones are more than willing to fill this gap by tossing Pakistan's rich and ancient history as "Indian history" which is completely distinct from Pakistani history and far too diverse to be classed as 'one history.'
The Pan-Islamist Wahhabis have their own version to offer usually in Urdu/Undri classes, which focuses less on actually maintaining fluency in Undri and more on Islam.
This Pan-Islamist Wahhabi ideology teaches Pakistanis they are a mixture of Arabs, Turko-Mongols and Persians.
So today you have a confused Pakistani population, one believing they are of "Indian origin" the other of Middle Eastern origins. See my other post Pakistanis ignorance to their roots.
Whenever people speak Urdu or another Pakistani language, they mix English words into it or even make an English-Urdu sentence, which looks so ridiculous.
Another problem is Urdu, with it's Arabic script is difficult to read in comparison to the Latin script of English. The state should be more involved in simplifying this Arabic alphabet or creating a new script.
In the Pakistani expatriate community there have been proposals to publish Urdu newspapers in Latin script.
Many in Pakistan who see this problem of a Western inferiority complex, are sadly themselves Pan-Islamist Wahhabis, or those who have developed an inferiority complex themselves towards Middle Eastern Muslims.
These people have proposed making Farsi or Arabic the national language(s) of Pakistan, thinking by sacking Urdu (or Undri) they will have saved the provincial languages.
I stated before in my post In defense of Urdu that officialising a foreign language will only further endanger our local languages.
My solution:
With the advance of technology and the availability of translating software, the government of Pakistan and the elites should take advantage of it and translate western published education materials for Pakistani youth in local languages.
Words for English terminology (ie scientific) can easily be translated by making up words for them in our languages.
This should not be for just Urdu but for all of Pakistan's languages if we are to have unity without the threat of endangering each others languages.
Below is are videos I would like readers to watch and listen to carefully:
Patricia Ryan: Don't insist on English! | Video on TED.com
People who have not learned English feel they have no economic future and the rich English-speaking, westernized elites of Pakistan who are the most educated only promote the use of English.
While it's true English is important when you're traveling abroad, it hardly fits any purpose at home in Pakistan domestically speaking.
It only endangers the identity(s) of the country.
If westernized Pakistanis travel to other poorer countries, they'll be surprised to see how little significance English has in over there.
Their citizens only learn foreign languages when they travel/live abroad.
A good example is in Arab countries where Arabic is protected by the law. In some Arab states all public signs must include an Arabic translation.
Some Arabic schools simply re-publish western textbooks, weather science or mathematics into Arabic.
When I lived in UAE, English was hardly treated with any seriousness by local Emiraties. Even Arab expatriates from other countries paid little seriousness to it beyond basic conversational English.
The video below covers the danger faced by Urdu due to English domination:
The reckless policies of private schools has only isolated the 'educated' youth from their societies. When they attend private western schools like the grammar school, they are taught history of western civilizations, to sing in the English language (many westerners will laugh at the sight of this), to speak English daily as possible to the point their native languages are difficult to learn.
They have little knowledge of the lifestyle or the conditions of their people. They are totally unfamiliar with their culture.
They (children of the rich ruling elites) know so much of western history, but hardly that of their own country or people. They hardly know what currently happens in their country, or where their people came from. The Indianized, pro-Indian, Bollywood brainwashed ones are more than willing to fill this gap by tossing Pakistan's rich and ancient history as "Indian history" which is completely distinct from Pakistani history and far too diverse to be classed as 'one history.'
The Pan-Islamist Wahhabis have their own version to offer usually in Urdu/Undri classes, which focuses less on actually maintaining fluency in Undri and more on Islam.
This Pan-Islamist Wahhabi ideology teaches Pakistanis they are a mixture of Arabs, Turko-Mongols and Persians.
So today you have a confused Pakistani population, one believing they are of "Indian origin" the other of Middle Eastern origins. See my other post Pakistanis ignorance to their roots.
Whenever people speak Urdu or another Pakistani language, they mix English words into it or even make an English-Urdu sentence, which looks so ridiculous.
Another problem is Urdu, with it's Arabic script is difficult to read in comparison to the Latin script of English. The state should be more involved in simplifying this Arabic alphabet or creating a new script.
In the Pakistani expatriate community there have been proposals to publish Urdu newspapers in Latin script.
Many in Pakistan who see this problem of a Western inferiority complex, are sadly themselves Pan-Islamist Wahhabis, or those who have developed an inferiority complex themselves towards Middle Eastern Muslims.
These people have proposed making Farsi or Arabic the national language(s) of Pakistan, thinking by sacking Urdu (or Undri) they will have saved the provincial languages.
I stated before in my post In defense of Urdu that officialising a foreign language will only further endanger our local languages.
My solution:
With the advance of technology and the availability of translating software, the government of Pakistan and the elites should take advantage of it and translate western published education materials for Pakistani youth in local languages.
Words for English terminology (ie scientific) can easily be translated by making up words for them in our languages.
This should not be for just Urdu but for all of Pakistan's languages if we are to have unity without the threat of endangering each others languages.
Below is are videos I would like readers to watch and listen to carefully:
Patricia Ryan: Don't insist on English! | Video on TED.com
Monday, January 18, 2010
Wikipedia: The not so free encyclopedia
You've all read and heard about this so-called "free encyclopedia" that anyone can edit.
Let me give readers a little background. The guy who co-founded this (Jimmy Wales) is a porn merchant and a right-wing racial supremacist.
Well in regards to articles many cabals come and takeover articles and persecute any user.
You see there's a rule on Wikipedia. If you change a section of an article to your liking and another person changes it back then it is called a revert. If you revert back and forth on the same content more than 3 times in 24 hours, you break a rule called the three revert rule. This leads to a temporary block by an administrator. The three revert rule is also called the 3RR for short.
So in the case of South Asian articles, a giant cabal of Indians (many of them right-wing Hindu fundamentalists) surround them all. If a Pakistani editor tries to remove Indian propaganda (ie. ancient India on the Indus civilization article to ancient Pakistan), about a dozen Indians will change it to their liking and take turns reverting it to the Indian version, only forcing the Pakistani editor to break the 3RR.
Also there is an entire category of up to at least fourteen Indian administrators who love to side with their Indian countrymen and block Pakistani users. According to a banned user who wrote to an Indian newspaper one of the Indian administrators there belongs to a Hindu militant group.
The Indian editors there also spend lots of their time writing articles like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Studies which originally started out as claiming Pakistanis are brainwashed religious fanatics until Pakistani editors modified it.
Or ones like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics
Claiming the history of Harrapa and Mohinjidarro for India.
This is what they do by spending their life time defaming us while claiming the accomplishments of our ancestors.
When I brought up the subject and got into discussion they then make personal attacks along religious lines "stop showing off your madrassa education." Worse, they even get a free pass to make such comments.
It opened my mind into the Hindutva mind set. Any arguments and these (believe it or not British and American born Hindus) people hurl insults.
I was not aware that even rich and educated Hindus have a such a prejudice against Pakistan.
They persecute any user with full force and unity if he/she dares question Indian propagated content.
Four Pakistani editors got banned for trying to resist. The Indians opened a request for arbitration against them (see 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... a-Pakistan
2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... n/Evidence
3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... n/Workshop
One of my fellow editors even provided evidence against an Indian user: "Let's talk about Muhammad and pedophilia."
I was surprised at the decision to ban all four of them by arbitrators. It later turned out one of them was Indian while at least two of them were Zionist (jpgorden and kirril loshkin, now I suspect flowguy). I learned this from an American blogger friend who was banned by the powerful Zionist lobby on Wikipedia (check out his blog http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2006/ ... pedia.html)
But coming to the point how does this affect us? Wikipedia has literally occupied Google searches and is branded as an "encyclopedia."
And Hindutvas there have found the perfect opportunity to strengthen their propaganda machine using this so-called "encyclopedia".
And the Hindutvas there have literally occupied all Pak-related articles. Pakistani editors there do not dare challenge this uncountable number of Indian Hindutva editors.
Not only that but we can use facts to prove that India is the one sponsoring terror by hosting Altaf Hussain and yet our government did nothing to accuse them. They have no proof but we have proof:
He was in New Delhi and received an award and welcome.
And it's not just Pakistani-related topics being hijacked by Indians on the encyclopedia. Cabals usually operate like on Wikipedia on topics they are most concerned with. The site is polluted with corrupt and arrogant administrators striving for maximum control.
Here are some links that readers (especially Wikipedia critics) would find useful:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7291382.stm
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/wikipedia-watch/4hmquk6fx4gu/381#
This post ends with an an email I got when I requested an unblock:
I follow Unblock-en-l and your case appeared in it, hi. Anyone who belongs to the dominant block of opinion on any subject can get anyone else blocked. Wikipedia has no policies, applied consistently.
All the admins who talk on Wiki-en-l (Unblock-en-l was set up separately from it summer 2006) openly admit counting any shred of personal fairness as mattering less than developing Wikipedia as they wish. Blocking of only 1 side when 2 sides have done exactly the same thing that the block is supposed to have been for, is routine. It's what happened to me, and claiming to have any rights against a biased 2-day block actually was the offense that got me permablocked, after only 5 weeks' membership. Look at all these:
a voice from within Wikipedia's own system describes how the ArbCom and dispute resolution systems are rigged with discretionary catch-alls that always enable admin to win
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html
on how force of group numbers dictates Wikipedia pages's content http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025936.html this is actually called "don't bother reporting abusive admins" http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025921.html
I was wary of how the umpiring of pages the whole world can fight over could possibly work well, but I was drawn into Wikipedia by a friend who was briefly (and no longer is, already!) having good experiences with sharing his medical concerns on a couple of pages on medical subjects. My Wiki name was Tern, and here are 2 administrators saying to me http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027816.html
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027817.html
saying "You are not entitled to anything" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy."
On the nature of Wikipedia: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025583.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/322087.html
http://spectrum-fairness.blog.co.uk/ tag "Wikipedia"
another recipient of this message contributed:
Being unfairly branded a target in the midst of Arbitration, with the Committee turning a blind eye,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs02#Response_to_comment_on_Appeal
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit&diff=prev&oldid=96730874
and a former admin, leaving Wikipedia on 6 Oct 06:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054949.html
" Too many admins whose first course is to insult a new user in order to see if they get a "reaction" so that they can spank the new user for talking back to an admin. I've seen too many admins block accounts for infinite duration on flimsy evidence or mere whim.
I've seen more accusations thrown around of someone being a "sockpuppet" of
another user. Time and again, I looked through the edits, and I didn't see
it. Instead, what I saw were users who were systematically hounded until
they finally broke down and broke the civility rules, and then as an afterthought someone came up and said "oh, it doesn't matter, they were a sockpuppet of X anyways", thereby removing all culpability on the part of the abusive users who had spent time hounding and abusing the newbie...
The Wiki is broken. ... We, the admins of wikipedia, broke it. We broke it by being stuck-up jerks. We broke it by thinking we are better than normal editors, by getting full of ourselves. "
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054951.html
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054957.html
We're actually developing a reputation as a place of arrogance and nastiness, a place of heavy-handed thugishness, a place where people treat each other quite badly. That's bad for the project.
In a case concerning an argument about Crusades history, ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/unblock-en-l/2007-January/002824.html if you can access Unblock-en-l archives) where an editor concerned about historical record came up against some strong religious feelings in favor of the Crusades' and was blocked, she has asked me to add her story to this information. "It shocks me that there are still people out there who are so ignorant and closed minded - they don't know the meaning of logic - yet it is they who write the Wikipedia encyclopedia: ironic." From her first message to Unblock-en-l, 19 Jan 2007:
" My account name is Agnes Nitt, I was blocked by Adam Bishop who banned me for this reason: troll. I will copy and paste the details: Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Adam Bishop for the following reason (see our blocking policy): troll. On the discussion page of Crusades, after I was banned, he put this just after my debate: Agnes has been blocked, because I am impatient and she *** me off. Adam Bishop 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
As is quite evident from the reason why I was blocked, and his rude comment afterwards, it is clear that I have had misjustice done against me. I didn't expect administrators to be so childish, and nonacademic, I mean, just because someone was having a debate with me on the discussions page and I had been proving them wrong, so an admin comes along, disagrees with me, cant counter my argument, and therefore blocks me from editing, and to crown it all, he leaves an abusive message against me and ridicules me (out of context from the debate-he should know that this isn't a regular chat room, where he can poke fun at me, but a discussion page confined to the Crusades and related topics) Just because he knows I cant reply. I broke no rules, I wasn't vandalising, nor was I threatening, and I was banned for no reason (other than troll) except that I have different views. "
She closed "I believe I have put my case in trusted hands, and I hope you reply to me concerning this as soon as possible, as I can no longer engage in any debate." But was told "Please assume good faith regarding Adam Bishop's actions. He may have been overreacting, but is a generally respected administrator. "
"I understand your point of view Herbert, but trust me, some people are brilliant and funny and nice etc, but when it comes to certain topics they become different people, ... And what I am saying is true, this whole idea that the crusaders were not too bad is myth, and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, it's heavily Point Of View, " (you may know of Wikipedia's policy "no points of view"?)
A send-up by "Something Awful" of the aggressive tone common on talk pages, that creates these situations: http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4288
Messages of support: "some of the people on there do seem pretty sarcastic and bullying .... some of the right-wingers on there seem to think mentioning anything negative but factual about Reagan or Bush constitutes bias and there do seem to be some nasty characters on there." - from Aspievision, http://s13.invisionfree.com/aspievision/index.php
"You are not the only one who has had problems with Wikipedia taking sides in a dispute, and being blatantly unfair to the other side without even giving them a chance to defend themselves." from FAMSecretSociety, a Yahoo group
"Yes ... this is my opinion of Wikipedia. It suppresses anything that may be considered 'more than marginally controversial'. It's definitely in the same boat as the mainstream media without any shadow of a doubt. " - the forum of the British anti-ID cards site http://www.1984brigade.com/
" of late I've noticed that some independent contributions have been either radically edited or censored. I've not had time to check articles on 9/11, the London Bombings, the assault on Falluja etc, but judging from the way content was edited promptly out of articles on SSRIs, schizophrenia and Asperger's, there definitely seem to be operatives in place ready to clamp down on anything that may cast doubt on establishment canards." from Medialens, http://www.medialens.org/board/
Let me give readers a little background. The guy who co-founded this (Jimmy Wales) is a porn merchant and a right-wing racial supremacist.
Well in regards to articles many cabals come and takeover articles and persecute any user.
You see there's a rule on Wikipedia. If you change a section of an article to your liking and another person changes it back then it is called a revert. If you revert back and forth on the same content more than 3 times in 24 hours, you break a rule called the three revert rule. This leads to a temporary block by an administrator. The three revert rule is also called the 3RR for short.
So in the case of South Asian articles, a giant cabal of Indians (many of them right-wing Hindu fundamentalists) surround them all. If a Pakistani editor tries to remove Indian propaganda (ie. ancient India on the Indus civilization article to ancient Pakistan), about a dozen Indians will change it to their liking and take turns reverting it to the Indian version, only forcing the Pakistani editor to break the 3RR.
Also there is an entire category of up to at least fourteen Indian administrators who love to side with their Indian countrymen and block Pakistani users. According to a banned user who wrote to an Indian newspaper one of the Indian administrators there belongs to a Hindu militant group.
The Indian editors there also spend lots of their time writing articles like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_Studies which originally started out as claiming Pakistanis are brainwashed religious fanatics until Pakistani editors modified it.
Or ones like these http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_mathematics
Claiming the history of Harrapa and Mohinjidarro for India.
This is what they do by spending their life time defaming us while claiming the accomplishments of our ancestors.
When I brought up the subject and got into discussion they then make personal attacks along religious lines "stop showing off your madrassa education." Worse, they even get a free pass to make such comments.
It opened my mind into the Hindutva mind set. Any arguments and these (believe it or not British and American born Hindus) people hurl insults.
I was not aware that even rich and educated Hindus have a such a prejudice against Pakistan.
They persecute any user with full force and unity if he/she dares question Indian propagated content.
Four Pakistani editors got banned for trying to resist. The Indians opened a request for arbitration against them (see 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... a-Pakistan
2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... n/Evidence
3.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... n/Workshop
One of my fellow editors even provided evidence against an Indian user: "Let's talk about Muhammad and pedophilia."
I was surprised at the decision to ban all four of them by arbitrators. It later turned out one of them was Indian while at least two of them were Zionist (jpgorden and kirril loshkin, now I suspect flowguy). I learned this from an American blogger friend who was banned by the powerful Zionist lobby on Wikipedia (check out his blog http://robertlindsay.blogspot.com/2006/ ... pedia.html)
But coming to the point how does this affect us? Wikipedia has literally occupied Google searches and is branded as an "encyclopedia."
And Hindutvas there have found the perfect opportunity to strengthen their propaganda machine using this so-called "encyclopedia".
And the Hindutvas there have literally occupied all Pak-related articles. Pakistani editors there do not dare challenge this uncountable number of Indian Hindutva editors.
Not only that but we can use facts to prove that India is the one sponsoring terror by hosting Altaf Hussain and yet our government did nothing to accuse them. They have no proof but we have proof:
He was in New Delhi and received an award and welcome.
And it's not just Pakistani-related topics being hijacked by Indians on the encyclopedia. Cabals usually operate like on Wikipedia on topics they are most concerned with. The site is polluted with corrupt and arrogant administrators striving for maximum control.
Here are some links that readers (especially Wikipedia critics) would find useful:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7291382.stm
http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/ http://knol.google.com/k/will-johnson/wikipedia-watch/4hmquk6fx4gu/381#
This post ends with an an email I got when I requested an unblock:
I follow Unblock-en-l and your case appeared in it, hi. Anyone who belongs to the dominant block of opinion on any subject can get anyone else blocked. Wikipedia has no policies, applied consistently.
All the admins who talk on Wiki-en-l (Unblock-en-l was set up separately from it summer 2006) openly admit counting any shred of personal fairness as mattering less than developing Wikipedia as they wish. Blocking of only 1 side when 2 sides have done exactly the same thing that the block is supposed to have been for, is routine. It's what happened to me, and claiming to have any rights against a biased 2-day block actually was the offense that got me permablocked, after only 5 weeks' membership. Look at all these:
a voice from within Wikipedia's own system describes how the ArbCom and dispute resolution systems are rigged with discretionary catch-alls that always enable admin to win
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html
on how force of group numbers dictates Wikipedia pages's content http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025936.html this is actually called "don't bother reporting abusive admins" http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025921.html
I was wary of how the umpiring of pages the whole world can fight over could possibly work well, but I was drawn into Wikipedia by a friend who was briefly (and no longer is, already!) having good experiences with sharing his medical concerns on a couple of pages on medical subjects. My Wiki name was Tern, and here are 2 administrators saying to me http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027816.html
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027817.html
saying "You are not entitled to anything" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy."
On the nature of Wikipedia: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025583.html
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/322087.html
http://spectrum-fairness.blog.co.uk/ tag "Wikipedia"
another recipient of this message contributed:
Being unfairly branded a target in the midst of Arbitration, with the Committee turning a blind eye,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nobs02#Response_to_comment_on_Appeal
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dmcdevit&diff=prev&oldid=96730874
and a former admin, leaving Wikipedia on 6 Oct 06:
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054949.html
" Too many admins whose first course is to insult a new user in order to see if they get a "reaction" so that they can spank the new user for talking back to an admin. I've seen too many admins block accounts for infinite duration on flimsy evidence or mere whim.
I've seen more accusations thrown around of someone being a "sockpuppet" of
another user. Time and again, I looked through the edits, and I didn't see
it. Instead, what I saw were users who were systematically hounded until
they finally broke down and broke the civility rules, and then as an afterthought someone came up and said "oh, it doesn't matter, they were a sockpuppet of X anyways", thereby removing all culpability on the part of the abusive users who had spent time hounding and abusing the newbie...
The Wiki is broken. ... We, the admins of wikipedia, broke it. We broke it by being stuck-up jerks. We broke it by thinking we are better than normal editors, by getting full of ourselves. "
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054951.html
http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054957.html
We're actually developing a reputation as a place of arrogance and nastiness, a place of heavy-handed thugishness, a place where people treat each other quite badly. That's bad for the project.
In a case concerning an argument about Crusades history, ( http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/private/unblock-en-l/2007-January/002824.html if you can access Unblock-en-l archives) where an editor concerned about historical record came up against some strong religious feelings in favor of the Crusades' and was blocked, she has asked me to add her story to this information. "It shocks me that there are still people out there who are so ignorant and closed minded - they don't know the meaning of logic - yet it is they who write the Wikipedia encyclopedia: ironic." From her first message to Unblock-en-l, 19 Jan 2007:
" My account name is Agnes Nitt, I was blocked by Adam Bishop who banned me for this reason: troll. I will copy and paste the details: Your account or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Adam Bishop for the following reason (see our blocking policy): troll. On the discussion page of Crusades, after I was banned, he put this just after my debate: Agnes has been blocked, because I am impatient and she *** me off. Adam Bishop 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
As is quite evident from the reason why I was blocked, and his rude comment afterwards, it is clear that I have had misjustice done against me. I didn't expect administrators to be so childish, and nonacademic, I mean, just because someone was having a debate with me on the discussions page and I had been proving them wrong, so an admin comes along, disagrees with me, cant counter my argument, and therefore blocks me from editing, and to crown it all, he leaves an abusive message against me and ridicules me (out of context from the debate-he should know that this isn't a regular chat room, where he can poke fun at me, but a discussion page confined to the Crusades and related topics) Just because he knows I cant reply. I broke no rules, I wasn't vandalising, nor was I threatening, and I was banned for no reason (other than troll) except that I have different views. "
She closed "I believe I have put my case in trusted hands, and I hope you reply to me concerning this as soon as possible, as I can no longer engage in any debate." But was told "Please assume good faith regarding Adam Bishop's actions. He may have been overreacting, but is a generally respected administrator. "
"I understand your point of view Herbert, but trust me, some people are brilliant and funny and nice etc, but when it comes to certain topics they become different people, ... And what I am saying is true, this whole idea that the crusaders were not too bad is myth, and shouldn't be in an encyclopedia, it's heavily Point Of View, " (you may know of Wikipedia's policy "no points of view"?)
A send-up by "Something Awful" of the aggressive tone common on talk pages, that creates these situations: http://www.somethingawful.com/index.php?a=4288
Messages of support: "some of the people on there do seem pretty sarcastic and bullying .... some of the right-wingers on there seem to think mentioning anything negative but factual about Reagan or Bush constitutes bias and there do seem to be some nasty characters on there." - from Aspievision, http://s13.invisionfree.com/aspievision/index.php
"You are not the only one who has had problems with Wikipedia taking sides in a dispute, and being blatantly unfair to the other side without even giving them a chance to defend themselves." from FAMSecretSociety, a Yahoo group
"Yes ... this is my opinion of Wikipedia. It suppresses anything that may be considered 'more than marginally controversial'. It's definitely in the same boat as the mainstream media without any shadow of a doubt. " - the forum of the British anti-ID cards site http://www.1984brigade.com/
" of late I've noticed that some independent contributions have been either radically edited or censored. I've not had time to check articles on 9/11, the London Bombings, the assault on Falluja etc, but judging from the way content was edited promptly out of articles on SSRIs, schizophrenia and Asperger's, there definitely seem to be operatives in place ready to clamp down on anything that may cast doubt on establishment canards." from Medialens, http://www.medialens.org/board/
How Indian and other anti-Pakistan propagators justify their lies through "scholarship."
A lot of anti-Pakistan propagators who try to gain validity in their claims sometimes travel to Western universities and major in courses like history or political science. Once they gain their masters degree in that subject, they misuse them to gain credibility for the lies they spread.
These "scholars" then flash around their degrees whenever the validity of their claims is questioned.
Just as much when a doctor prescribes cow urine as a cure, he/she would most likely get questioned and would use their doctors certificate to try and validate their lies. After all isn't any doctor or a person certified in their field capable of misusing their certification? Of course.
Additionally anti-Pakistani propagandists particularly Indians love to quote them and publish them on websites like Wikipedia and other sites where quotes from these "scholars" are required.
Some of these "scholars" are also self-proclaimed ones.
A good example is Ayesha Jalal (whom by the way is not even a Pakistani, but an Indian Muslim immigrant residing in America). This woman goes to America, gets a university degree in history and then immediately steps aboard her anti-Pakistan propaganda career.
And because of her Pakistani citizenship, this woman is a favorite of the Indians. This woman criticizes Pakistanis for trying to preserve their pre-Islamic heritage. She goes as far to claim Pakistan's pre-Islamic heritage is all made up to compete against what she calls "India's ancient history."
This fifth columnist goes as far to claim that the existence of Pakistan as a state is a "Western conspiracy."
It's rather amusing, since history shows the British opposed Jinnah and his ambitions for the establishment of an independent Pakistan.
Not only that but the West has been the traditional ally of the Indian state- their own creation- as a tool to keep their arch-rival China occupied; whereas Pakistan has been allied with China, and North Korea all traditional enemies of the West. So why would the west be so interested in 'creating' or backing Pakistan in the first place?
And according to Ms Jalal and her fans, this lady's claims are unquestionable because of the possession of her American degree in history.
Another "expert" or "scholar" is Pervez Hoodbhoy who is also another favorite of the Indians based in Pakistan. This man is a professor at Alama Iqbal university in Islamabad, and does not hesitate to blame Pakistan whenever a terrorist attack happens somewhere in the world. Any anti-Pakistan lobby in need of a propagator doesn't look further than Mr Hoodbhoy himself and his trusty sidekick, Asma Jahangir.
These people are as pro-Indian as one can get.
On the Indian side, there is a well known writer, who goes by the name B Raman and is a favorite hunter for the weaknesses of Pakistan and exploiting them. His infamous article how China keeps the PAF flying is a masterpiece of tosh.
When over 80% of the Indian military equipment is so dependent on Western & Israeli exports.
These "scholars" can easily be challenged and exposed. If documentation of historic truth and sheer logic is used, no diplomas or PHDs these "scholars" show-off can overcome the power of the truth.
As stated before, a fully certified doctor can prescribe cow urine or any dangerous, unhealthy liquids. But no certification can contradict the fact that it's dangerous when it's clearly scientifically proven.
It is important for truth seekers to expose these "scholars" and their lies using such tactics, otherwise they gain large followings and whatever they state is accepted unquestioned simply because of a silly certificate they hold in their hand.
These "scholars" then flash around their degrees whenever the validity of their claims is questioned.
Just as much when a doctor prescribes cow urine as a cure, he/she would most likely get questioned and would use their doctors certificate to try and validate their lies. After all isn't any doctor or a person certified in their field capable of misusing their certification? Of course.
Additionally anti-Pakistani propagandists particularly Indians love to quote them and publish them on websites like Wikipedia and other sites where quotes from these "scholars" are required.
Some of these "scholars" are also self-proclaimed ones.
A good example is Ayesha Jalal (whom by the way is not even a Pakistani, but an Indian Muslim immigrant residing in America). This woman goes to America, gets a university degree in history and then immediately steps aboard her anti-Pakistan propaganda career.
And because of her Pakistani citizenship, this woman is a favorite of the Indians. This woman criticizes Pakistanis for trying to preserve their pre-Islamic heritage. She goes as far to claim Pakistan's pre-Islamic heritage is all made up to compete against what she calls "India's ancient history."
This fifth columnist goes as far to claim that the existence of Pakistan as a state is a "Western conspiracy."
It's rather amusing, since history shows the British opposed Jinnah and his ambitions for the establishment of an independent Pakistan.
Not only that but the West has been the traditional ally of the Indian state- their own creation- as a tool to keep their arch-rival China occupied; whereas Pakistan has been allied with China, and North Korea all traditional enemies of the West. So why would the west be so interested in 'creating' or backing Pakistan in the first place?
And according to Ms Jalal and her fans, this lady's claims are unquestionable because of the possession of her American degree in history.
Another "expert" or "scholar" is Pervez Hoodbhoy who is also another favorite of the Indians based in Pakistan. This man is a professor at Alama Iqbal university in Islamabad, and does not hesitate to blame Pakistan whenever a terrorist attack happens somewhere in the world. Any anti-Pakistan lobby in need of a propagator doesn't look further than Mr Hoodbhoy himself and his trusty sidekick, Asma Jahangir.
These people are as pro-Indian as one can get.
On the Indian side, there is a well known writer, who goes by the name B Raman and is a favorite hunter for the weaknesses of Pakistan and exploiting them. His infamous article how China keeps the PAF flying is a masterpiece of tosh.
When over 80% of the Indian military equipment is so dependent on Western & Israeli exports.
These "scholars" can easily be challenged and exposed. If documentation of historic truth and sheer logic is used, no diplomas or PHDs these "scholars" show-off can overcome the power of the truth.
As stated before, a fully certified doctor can prescribe cow urine or any dangerous, unhealthy liquids. But no certification can contradict the fact that it's dangerous when it's clearly scientifically proven.
It is important for truth seekers to expose these "scholars" and their lies using such tactics, otherwise they gain large followings and whatever they state is accepted unquestioned simply because of a silly certificate they hold in their hand.
The three mentalities that threaten the future mindset of Pakistanis
We have three groups of traitors in our country and here's how I classify them:
1) Islamists who have no respect for our ancient history, who want to open our borders and let foreigners come in and run all over our country with a free pass as long as they're Muslim.
The only "education" they believe our children should get is grabbing the Quran and memorizing verses in a completely foreign language (Arabic) and repeating them like parrots 24 hours a day.
I'd like to add these same Islamists insisted upon us joining Ghandhis newly founded country"India".They even attempted to assassinate our beloved and well respected Quaid-e-Azam for refusing to join with India.
They will try to mingle our identity with the Muslims of the middle east,even though they are a completely foreign people to us.
2) Indianized "Pakistanis" or more specifically those who always think so highly of India. Some of these people are in fact Indian immigrants. They, like some Indian imperialists insist upon our so-called "common" culture and ethnicity with the Indians.
They insist upon diminishing our Pakistani identity and uniting with a foreign country next door to us. We may as well unite with the Chinese, after all they get on with us much more than the Indians do.
3) Westernized Pakistanis who have dominated the education system in Pakistan. They have taught our children that speaking in our own language is a crime and that it's a cool thing to go out eating out at western restaurants like McDonald's.
They have worked so hard to make sure that Pakistani youth are completely disconnected to the reality of their society.
The have introduced French, German, Spanish and English to our youth but never bothered with Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, Balochi. This is threatening our country's native languages, resulting in division amongst our people's based on language.
Tell me how important are these western languages when you travel all over Pakistan? Most of our children cannot afford to travel to the west.
"Business language"? My friends Turkey receives more western tourists than Pakistan and how fluent are they in English?
I once flew on Air China from Kuwait to Karachi and the captain surprisingly spoke almost no English. I could barely converse with him. He only knew enough English to understand air traffic rules and regulations and English words associated with aviation.
Not only that but he and his colleagues discussed the entire flight plan from Kuwait to Karachi all in Chinese!
I believe these three groups who are dominant in our country's politics and ruling class pose a serious threat to Pakistan's development and future.
1) Islamists who have no respect for our ancient history, who want to open our borders and let foreigners come in and run all over our country with a free pass as long as they're Muslim.
The only "education" they believe our children should get is grabbing the Quran and memorizing verses in a completely foreign language (Arabic) and repeating them like parrots 24 hours a day.
I'd like to add these same Islamists insisted upon us joining Ghandhis newly founded country"India".They even attempted to assassinate our beloved and well respected Quaid-e-Azam for refusing to join with India.
They will try to mingle our identity with the Muslims of the middle east,even though they are a completely foreign people to us.
2) Indianized "Pakistanis" or more specifically those who always think so highly of India. Some of these people are in fact Indian immigrants. They, like some Indian imperialists insist upon our so-called "common" culture and ethnicity with the Indians.
They insist upon diminishing our Pakistani identity and uniting with a foreign country next door to us. We may as well unite with the Chinese, after all they get on with us much more than the Indians do.
3) Westernized Pakistanis who have dominated the education system in Pakistan. They have taught our children that speaking in our own language is a crime and that it's a cool thing to go out eating out at western restaurants like McDonald's.
They have worked so hard to make sure that Pakistani youth are completely disconnected to the reality of their society.
The have introduced French, German, Spanish and English to our youth but never bothered with Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, Balochi. This is threatening our country's native languages, resulting in division amongst our people's based on language.
Tell me how important are these western languages when you travel all over Pakistan? Most of our children cannot afford to travel to the west.
"Business language"? My friends Turkey receives more western tourists than Pakistan and how fluent are they in English?
I once flew on Air China from Kuwait to Karachi and the captain surprisingly spoke almost no English. I could barely converse with him. He only knew enough English to understand air traffic rules and regulations and English words associated with aviation.
Not only that but he and his colleagues discussed the entire flight plan from Kuwait to Karachi all in Chinese!
I believe these three groups who are dominant in our country's politics and ruling class pose a serious threat to Pakistan's development and future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)